Nanotech advancing at warp speed

Categories

Environment

Health

Technology

Rachel's Environment and Health News has released the third part of its documentary on a technological revolution that is coming fast upon us. I find it fascinating how little we actually know of the very programs that are being financed with big bucks and that will determine our future to a handsomely large degree. Maybe we should find out more...

And while we're at it, I read that "the National Nanotech Initiative is now funded at the level of $700 million per year -- the third largest public research program in the U.S., after the war on cancer and the star wars missile defense program."

Wonder where all those cancer funds are ending up. Certainly we don't get a cancer cure for them either.

THE REVOLUTION, PT. 3: ULTRAFINES

A revolution is sweeping through science and technology, blending cognitive science (how the brain works), biotechnology (manipulation of genes), information technology, and nanotechnology, or nanotech for short. The engineers who are masterminding this revolution explain that it is "essential to the future of humanity"[1, pg. 22] because it holds the promise of "world peace, universal prosperity, and evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment."[1, pg. 6] They say it may be "a watershed in history to rank with the invention of agriculture and the Industrial Revolution."[1, pg. 20] The ultimate aim of the revolution is not so new: the "conquest of nature." [1, pg. 80]

The revolution is driven by the convergence of four technologies (nano, bio, info, cogno), but here we focus again on only one of the four -- nanotech -- because it is becoming the foundation stone of bio and info sciences,[1, pg. 71] because it has been largely ignored by the media, and because it is galloping forward at breakneck speed. It is no exaggeration to say that the field of nanotech is gripped by a "gold rush" mentality. Any day of the week, take a look at http://nanotech-now.com/ to catch a glimpse of the gold rush in action.

Nanotech is named for the nanometer, a unit of measure, a billionth of a meter, one one-thousandth of a micrometer. The Oxford English Dictionary defines nanotechnology as "the branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometres, esp. the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules."

In 2000, President Clinton created the National Nanotech Initiative, which is now funded at the level of $700 million per year -- the third largest public research program in the U.S., after the war on cancer and the star wars missile defense program. (See Rachel's #772 and #773.) In every state in the U.S., nanotech proponents are commandeering tax dollars to subsidize "the next big thing." Many states are hoping to establish their own "Nano Valley" as an entrepreneurial wild west modeled on Silicon Valley before the bubble burst.

See also related:

Nanotech Materials Can Damage Your Brain

October 2004:

Wired Magazine: The Incredible Shrinking Man
K. Eric Drexler was the godfather of nanotechnology. But the MIT prodigy who dreamed up molecular machines was shoved aside by big science - and now he's an industry outcast.

In March of this year, Small Times magazine said the states with the greatest nanotech potential are California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania, with Colorado, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington state close behind.[2] The National Science Foundation predicts that nanotech will be a trillion-dollar industry by 2015, just 12 years from now.[2] Nanotech is advancing upon us at warp speed.

This week we will focus on only one aspect of nanotech: the environmental and human health effects of nano particles, which are particles 100 nanometers (0.1 micrometers) or less in diameter. As we saw in Rachel's #772, the intentional manufacture of nano particles is already under way, and this new industry is gearing up worldwide. Nano particles go by different names, such as nanodots, nanotubes, buckyballs, and buckminsterfullerenes, among others.

According to the Etc Group, which follows nanotech developments carefully, an estimated 140 companies are now producing nano particles in powders, sprays, and coatings that are being used in a variety of products, including sunscreens, automobile parts, tennis rackets, scratch-proof eye glasses, stain-repellent fabrics, self-cleaning windows, and more.[3, pg. 2] Mitsubishi Chemical in Japan has reportedly begun construction of a plant to manufacture nanotubes at the rate of 120 tons per year, with plans to increase output to 1500 tons per year by 2007.[4] The U.S. government's space agency, NASA, plans to spend the next five years scaling up the production of nanotubes. [1, pg. 50]

One of the most important characteristics of nano particles is their huge surface-to-volume ratio. The smaller something is, the larger its surface area is, in comparison to its volume. Because nano particles are so small, they have an enormous surface area, relative to their volume. Drug companies are planning to take advantage of those large surfaces -- for example, covering nano particles with drugs for targeted delivery into the interiors of our cells. The smaller the size of the particle, the larger the load of drugs it can carry (larger, relative to the particle's volume).

Unfortunately, the large surface area of tiny particles also makes them dangerous for at least two reasons: first, the large surfaces alone promote the reaction of oxygen with human (or animal) tissue, creating free radicals.

"Free radicals are atoms or groups of atoms with an odd (unpaired) number of electrons and can be formed when oxygen interacts with certain molecules. Once formed these highly reactive radicals can start a chain reaction, like dominoes. Their chief danger comes from the damage they can do when they react with important cellular components such as DNA, or the cell membrane [the cell's outer casing]. Cells may function poorly or die if this occurs," explains Dr. Mark Jenkins at Rice University.[5]

In sum, the large surface of nano particles offers an ideal place which oxygen reactions can occur in the airways and lungs, resulting in the formation of free radicals with subsequent cell damage or cell death, followed by inflammation.

The second danger from nano particles arises when they float freely in the air, where their large surface area provides a sticky place where metals and hydrocarbons attach themselves. The smaller the size of the particle, the larger the load of metals and hydrocarbons it can carry (larger, relative to the particle's volume).

What do we know about health effects of nano particles?

It turns out that we already have a fair amount of data on the dangers of airborne nano particles -- but researchers don't call them nano particles. They call them ultrafines. Nano particles and ultrafines are the same thing -- particles with an average diameter of 100 nanometers (0.1 micrometers) or less.

Scientists have known for more than a decade that fine and ultrafine particles in the air create haze and kill large numbers of humans. Fines and ultrafines are produced by fossil-fuel power plants, incinerators, cement kilns, and diesel engines, among other sources. As early as 1991, Dr. Joel Schwartz of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (now at Harvard) estimated that fine particles were killing 60,000 people each year in the U.S. That shocking estimate has since been confirmed and reconfirmed and is now widely accepted.[6] Fine particles are defined as those with a diameter of 10,000 nanometers (10 micrometers) or less. Ultrafines are 100 times smaller than fines.[6]

Today, researchers are examining the properties of ultrafines and there seems to be little doubt that they are the major killers in haze. Studies in Los Angeles, California reveal that ultrafines are 10 to 50 times as damaging to lung tissue, compared to larger fine particles.[7]

Since 1991, scientists have been wondering whether fine and ultrafine particles cause harm because of their size alone, or because they carry metals and hydrocarbons deep into the lung. Researchers today believe that, in the case of ultrafines, the answer is both.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency refers to fines as PM 10 (short for "particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter"). By 1996, EPA became convinced that PM 2.5 (particles with diameters of 2.5 micrometers [2500 nanometers] or less) were far more dangerous than PM 10, and the agency proposed rules to control PM 2.5 air pollution. Corporations immediately sued in court to "get government off our backs" and to fulfill their fiduciary duty to shareholders by every legal means, even though that duty in this instance entails killing tens of thousands of anonymous citizens each year. In 2001, after a 5-year court battle, EPA won in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the agency, chastened by corporate encounters, has shelved its plan for controlling PM 2.5 air pollution.[8]

Meanwhile, new studies are piling up showing that nano particles (ultrafines, which in EPA terminology would be PM 0.1) are by far the most dangerous of all.

EPA does not collect data on nano particles in any systematic way, and has announced no plans to control them. Meanwhile the nano particle corporations and NASA are ramping up industrial operations to manufacture ultrafines in ton quantities. It appears that the stage is being set for major new trouble and an escalation of the killing.

The picture continues to develop, but current research shows that nano particles in the lung cause the formation of free radicals, which in turn, cause lung disease, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, nano particles carry metals and carcinogenic hydrocarbons deep into the lung, where they exacerbate asthma and other serious breathing problems. In addition, nano particles combined with metals can pass directly into the brain where they promote the formation of waxy amyloid plaques, which are the signature feature of Alzheimer's disease.

In Fresno, Calif., Kent E. Pinkerton at Univ. of Calif. Davis found from autopsies that "outwardly robust people routinely harbor damage in their lungs' small airways, setting the stage for respiratory and cardiovascular disease." The bronchioles were scarred with fibrosis and an abnormal thickening, apparently caused by "the ravages of free radicals." [6,9]

Subsequent exposure of rats to ultr